ORDER 1. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 10.6.2009 (Annexure P-1), by which the petitioner has been granted appointment in the regular establishment of the respondents. 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner had actually been appointed as work charged employee in the establishment of the respondents in the year 1981 and while working as work charged employee he was subjected to a criminal prosecution in the year 1988. It is stated that during the pendency of the criminal trial, the respondents issued an order on 29.4.1989 regularizing the petitioner, however, the said order was kept in abeyance by order dated 10.5.1989 on account of the fact that a criminal case was pending against him. It is further stated that on account of the criminal case initiated against the petitioner he was placed under suspension which was subsequently revoked on 9.10.1992 subject to the condition and undertaking given by the petitioner that he would not claim the arrears of suspension allowance or back wages or any other monetary claim and that his suspension would be subject to the decision of the criminal case. 3. It is submitted that subsequently the petitioner was convicted in the criminal case on 21.1.2000 pursuant to which he was terminated from service on 31.1.2000. The petitioner being aggrieved by his termination approached the trial Court which dismissed his claim on 14.6.2005, being aggrieved by which he filed an appeal before the Industrial Court. During the pendency of the appeal the petitioner was acquitted by the appellate Court on 30.7.2002. The Industrial Court taking the fact of acquittal of the petitioner into consideration allowed his appeal and ordered that he be taken back in service with effect from the date of his acquittal by its order dated 26.10.2005. While doing so the Industrial Court also ordered that the petitioner would be entitled to back wages. 4. The respondents being aggrieved by the order of back wages filed a writ petition before this Court which was registered as Writ Petition No.1772/2006(S) and was allowed on 13.11.2006. While doing so the Industrial Court also ordered that the petitioner would be entitled to back wages. 4. The respondents being aggrieved by the order of back wages filed a writ petition before this Court which was registered as Writ Petition No.1772/2006(S) and was allowed on 13.11.2006. The order of granting back wages to the petitioner for the period 30.7.2002 to 12.12.2003 was set aside and the order passed in the writ petition was reiterated in review in Miscellaneous Civil Case No.1664/2007 and was also affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.1782/2007. 5. The respondents thereafter issued the order Annexure P-1, dated 19.6.2009 giving appointment to the petitioner in the regular establishment being aggrieved by which the petitioner has filed the present writ petition claiming the following reliefs :- (i) To direct the respondents to modify the order dated 19.6.2009 thereby treat the petitioner as a regular employee w.e.f. 29.4.1989 in view of the order contained in Annexure P-4 wherein the petitioner was granted appointment in the regular establishment and grant upto-date consequential benefits with interest. (ii) The respondents be further directed to count the service length of the petitioner from 29.4.1989 and accordingly grant all the monetary and consequential benefits which would have accrued to the petitioner had the criminal proceedings not been launched against the petitioner by the respondents through the police and the benefits which have accrued to the petitioner since he has been acquitted. (iii) Command the respondents to pay full salary and wages from the date of acquittal of the petitioner i.e. from 30.7.2002 till the reinstatement of the petitioner i.e. 12.12.2003 along with interest. (iv) Further hold that petitioner is entitled for payment of full salary and other monetary benefits for the period of suspension 11.4.1988 to 9.10.1992 since the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case and accordingly direction be issued to the respondents. (v) Any other relief (s) which petitioner is found entitled to may kindly be granted to the petitioner with cost. 6. (v) Any other relief (s) which petitioner is found entitled to may kindly be granted to the petitioner with cost. 6. The respondents have filed a return and stated that the petitioner has rightly been granted regularization in the regular establishment by order dated 19.6.2009, however, the fact of appointment of the petitioner in the work charged establishment in the year 1981, his subsequent regularization in the year 1989, keeping the order in abeyance in the year 1989, his termination on account of conviction and his subsequent reinstatement on his acquittal in compliance of the order of Industrial Court and all other factual aspects have not been denied. It is also not stated in the return by the respondents that all these aspects were taken into consideration while issuing the order dated 19.6.2009. 7. In the circumstances, looking to the history of the case narrated above, I am of the considered opinion that the claim of the petitioner deserves to be considered in detail by the respondents and thereafter a decision in the matter is required to be taken and, therefore, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the respondent/authorities to reconsider the case of the petitioner regarding his regularization in the permanent establishment and the date from which the benefits thereof is required to be given to him as well as the consideration of his service as work charged employee, if necessary, for the purposes of computing his service benefits etc. and thereafter take a fresh decision in the matter, if so required. 8. The aforesaid exercise be undertaken by the respondent/authorities as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order passed today. 9. It is further observed and directed that the impugned order, Annexure P-1, shall be subject to any decision taken by the respondent/authorities to the contrary and that benefits if any accrued to the petitioner shall thereafter be granted in accordance with the fresh decision taken by the respondent/authorities. It is made clear that the authorities would also be at liberty to withdraw and modify the order, Annexure P-1. 10. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of.